Would Cleveland Have Beat LA in the Finals?

[semi-sentient]

I don't really see how you can say Cleveland is mediocre.

Neither do I, since I never said the Cavs were mediocre.

So to answer your question, no, I am not kidding you, because I never said that Ilgauskus and Wallace compared to KG and Perkins defensively. Feel free to quote where I said that.

I didn't quote you (and you didn't quote me, but I'm assuming you're responding to my post), so no where did I imply that you ever said anything. I was responding to the question posed by the thread starter, and I didn't read all the way through the thread.

And the 2007/08 Lakers, and eating anyone alive in the middle, is a laughable thought. Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, and Vladamir Radmanovic?! Are you sure you were watching the same Lakers I was? I would say that LA's softness inside was the #1 most talked about subject during the finals.

Clearly you are NOT watching the same Lakers. The Cavs don't have anyone on the inside that is going to stop or slow down Pau. Take a good look at what he did to Denver and Utah. That's the Pau I would expect to see (offensively) against the Cavs. LA's "softness" inside is irrelevant because the Cavs don't have what the Celts have inside. If you think outrebounding the Lakers is going to give the Cavs some kind of advantage, then ask Denver, Utah, and San Antonio how that worked out.

Also, to say that the Cavs themselves aren't an excellent defensive team is just a lie. They are a very good defensive team and they proved it against the Celtics.

1) The Celtics are not as good as the Lakers on offense and I simply think they match up much better.

2) Compared to the Celtics, which is one of very few teams I would consider "excellent" on the defensive end, they aren't. They are good, but not excellent.

You think Boston would've averageg 85ppg had they met Orlando in the semifinals? Give Cleveland some credit where credit is due. Paul Pierce was held in check for 6 of 7 games and Cleveland also didn't allow anyone of our role players to really step up. The result was a defensive war and Cleveland almost walked out of it victorious.

Of course Boston would have done better, but that's the whole point. The match-ups are different from series to series. Points scored is not really the point of why I think the Lakers would win. They averaged 93.4 against the Spurs and still took it in 5. It's about the advantages that the Lakers have at the various positions. Continually referring to what the Cavs did against the Celtics is pointless, IMO. Would the Hawks have beaten the Lakers because they took the Celtics to 7 games as well?

Also, I did enjoy the part of your last post where you said that all this talk about LA's softness comes from their problems on the glass. You then said that this was exposed by Boston's rebounding prowess, and then falsely claimed that Boston was the best rebounding team in the league. I just checked some stats and guess who was really the best rebounding team in the league? Cleveland was #2 in total rebounds (0.1rpg less than Houston), and #1 is rebounding differential on the season.

I'm just saying..

Correct. I looked at the wrong statistic. However, it really doesn't matter. The Lakers were outrebounded by all of their opponents (particulary against Utah, who is 3rd in differential), but the Celtics were the one team that it mattered against because they were able to limit the Lakers offensively. I don't believe the Cavs would have the same success.

[semi-sentient]

PS: Odom averaged 16.5 PPG (67% FG) and 10 REB against the the Cavs. By contrast, he averaged 9 PPG (33% FG), and 7.5 REB against the Celtics. If he can put up those numbers against the Cavs, what makes you think that Pau wouldn't do even better? Additionally, Kobe averaged 27 PPG (42%), 8.5 REB, 5.5 AST, 2.5 TO during the regular season against the Cavs. That's considerably better than what he averaged against the Celtics during the regular season, and we saw how he increased his efficiency against them in the playoffs (though in the end his efficiency was still poor). I'm not saying that the regular season has a ton of relevance, but it's clear that the Celtics do a much better job than the Cavs on the defensive end when it comes to defending options 1-3.

[EJay33]

Yeah, sorry semi-sentient, I got you and GuyClinch confused when I made the "mediocre" comment.

However, with regards to your quote:

The only team, IMO, that had a good enough defense to beat the Lakers were the Celtics. They had what it took because of their physicality in the middle, coupled with GREAT team defense. The Cavs don't have that. Say what you want about Ben Wallace and Igs, but those guys don't even compare defensively to Garnett and Perkins. Are you kidding me? The Lakers would have eaten them alive in the middle. The way I see it Pau and Odom held their own defensively. Soft or not, anytime you hold a guy like Garnett to 43% shooting (by far his lowest of the playoffs), that says something about the player defending him.

It does not matter whether or not you were responding to me directly. I instead just addressed the content of what you said. The 2007-2008 LA Lakers were not eating anyone alive in the middle, especially not the best rebounding team in the league. Z is 7'3" 260lbs, 'Bron is 6'8" 250, Varejo is 6'10" 240, Wallace is 6'8" 240., Joe Smith is 6'10" 225. Except for Z, all of these guys punish the opposition. LA had Turiaf and Gasol, and Gasol is certainly of questionable toughness. Odom and Radman are nonexistent down low.

Also, Denver is awful and everyone predicted LA to sweep them. Boozer spent that whole series against LA in foul trouble trying to help out on Kobe and Gasol went to work on backups. Everyone knew that Utah couldn't match up with the Lakers and in particular Bryant. This was common knowledge and didn't shock anyone when that series played out the way it did. In the two series' where he had to play against actually good defensive teams Gasol didn't do anything, ditto Lamar Odom. The 2007-08 Lakers were a nice novelty team with a pretty offense, not a serious threat to win a championship. The Spurs, if healthy, would've beaten them too.

Furthermore, it'd be a lot more interesting conversation if we could at least stick to real stats. LA did not get outrebounded by all of their opponents, they outrebounded the Spurs by 4.4rpg. Even that series victory over the Spurs took a) a 20 point comeback in game 1, b) a 17 point comeback in game 5, and c) a ridiculous no-call on Fisher on a Barry 3-point attempt in game 4. SAS nearly shut Ginobilli down for the series due to injuries and he is their #2 guy. Without him they couldn't hang with Kobe and didn't have enough offense.

I guess where the conversation breaks down is when you keep comparing the Cavs to the Celtics. I agree with you, Boston is a better team than LeBron and the D-Leaguers. I think that the two teams have a similar build and a similar recipe for success, namely, relying on tough defense and rebounding to win. At times against good defensive teams it doesn't even look like the Celtics have an offense or any plays. Cleveland is the same way, they have LeBron and some shooters and it works.

My argument is that because Boston handled the Lakers with such ease by bullying their soft interior players, that Cleveland would've been able to beat the Lakers as well by using a similar strategy even though they are not quite as good as Boston. The Cavs held Antawn Jamison, Caron Butler, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce well below their usual standards. I just highly doubt that an inexperienced Laker team without the ability to get crucial stops would've ran all over an experienced team with a defensive mindset and the best player in the NBA. I guess that is the whole argument, you think that LA's offense would've compensated, I think they weren't that great and would've gotten exposed by the Cavs just like the Celtics. Since the Celtics beat both and we can never prove this because they'll never play, we'll have to just agree to disagree.

[semi-sentient]

It does not matter whether or not you were responding to me directly. I instead just addressed the content of what you said. The 2007-2008 LA Lakers were not eating anyone alive in the middle, especially not the best rebounding team in the league. Z is 7'3" 260lbs, 'Bron is 6'8" 250, Varejo is 6'10" 240, Wallace is 6'8" 240., Joe Smith is 6'10" 225. Except for Z, all of these guys punish the opposition. LA had Turiaf and Gasol, and Gasol is certainly of questionable toughness. Odom and Radman are nonexistent down low.

I didn't say that the Lakers were eating opponents alive. I made that comment because I feel that Gasol and Odom would have more success inside against the Cavs than they did against teams like Utah, San Antonio, and especially the Celtics. This doesn't imply that they would get more rebounds, only that they would score more points and whatnot. The only sample that I can really go by are the head-to-head matchups in which case Odom did have plenty of success against the Cavs. The same goes for Gasol who has pretty much torched the Cavs the last 3 times he's faced them. I don't see why any of that would change.

Having said that, I would expect the Cavs to out-rebound the Lakers, but they would not stop Odom or Gasol from getting theirs. There just isn't anything to suggest that they would.

Also, Denver is awful and everyone predicted LA to sweep them.

Agreed.

Boozer spent that whole series against LA in foul trouble trying to help out on Kobe and Gasol went to work on backups. Everyone knew that Utah couldn't match up with the Lakers and in particular Bryant.

Boozer was guarding Odom, which explains why Odom drew 13 fouls on him. Kobe drew 5 fouls on Boozer, and Gasol 6.

In the two series' where he had to play against actually good defensive teams Gasol didn't do anything, ditto Lamar Odom.

Pau Gasol went against Duncan and Garnett, two of the best defenders in the league. I think it's somewhat understandable that he didn't produce his usual numbers. Are you telling me that Igs is going to do anywhere near the job that they did? I think not. Take a good look at what Gasol has done to him the last 3 times they faced each other:

Gasol:
27 PTS (11-13 FG), 6 REB, 1 AST, 1 STL, 1 BLK, 1 TO
28 PTS (12-19 FG), 7 REB, 3 AST, 0 STL, 2 BLK, 3 TO
37 PTS (12-20 FG), 11 REB, 1 AST, 1 STL, 5 BLK, 4 TO

Igs:
15 PTS (7-12 FG), 4 REB, 1 AST, 1 STL, 0 BLK, 4 TO
11 PTS (4-9 FG), 1 REB, 2 AST, 0 STL, 2 BLK, 2 TO
17 PTS (5-15 FG), 11 REB, 2 AST, 0 STL, 2 BLK, 2 TO

This is clearly a matchup that heavily favors the Lakers. If they decide to help out on Gasol, that's where Odom comes into play and burns them. Unless the Cavs have a way to contain Gasol 1-on-1, yes, he is going to eat Igs alive.

Furthermore, it'd be a lot more interesting conversation if we could at least stick to real stats. LA did not get outrebounded by all of their opponents, they outrebounded the Spurs by 4.4rpg.

Well, you are correct here. I made the assumption that they were out-rebounded simply because I knew they were against Denver and Utah (by a large margin). Color me surprised.

Even that series victory over the Spurs took a) a 20 point comeback in game 1, b) a 17 point comeback in game 5, and c) a ridiculous no-call on Fisher on a Barry 3-point attempt in game 4. SAS nearly shut Ginobilli down for the series due to injuries and he is their #2 guy. Without him they couldn't hang with Kobe and didn't have enough offense.

Not sure what that has to do with respect to the Cavs/Lakers...

[grantlongforpresident]

short answer: No

long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[drza]

The Odom counter-argument above is a good point. A completely overlooked factor in the Celtics/Lakers series was that KG just absolutely removed Lamar Odom for the most part. Many seemed to attribute that to Odom's perceived flighty nature, but in reality KG is just a really bad match-up for him because he's one of the few big men with the quickness to guard Odom on the perimeter and the size to also keep him off the boards. The Cavs lack a defender like that, as Wallace doesn't have that quickness anymore and I don't know that Varejao ever had the footspeed. Both are good at beating on opposing big men, and I think he could have been effective against Pau, but if you put them on Pau then that leaves Iggy on Odom which is a nightmare mismatch.

I still think Cleveland's clog-the-middle strategy on defense and physicality on the boards would have proven effective against the Lakers, but the Lakers definitely would have had some mismatches to exploit as well. I think it'd have been an interesting series, but I'm overjoyed that we never got to see it...

[humblebum]

I just don't understand how LA would have had any chance of slowing down Lebron James. The weakest link on LA's roster was clearly the SF spot. Lebron would have dominated at the rim on drives considering the softness of Odom/Gasol. The Lakers just did not display, in the slightest, the ability to defend effectively as a team in order to take away a great SG/SF... and that is the one thing that the Lakers did not have to face throughout the playoffs with a disinterested Denver team, a wing challenged Utah team, and a hampered Ginobli.

On the other hand Kobe would have a huge advantage against Wally but the Cavs, like the Celtics, specialize in forcing teams to take contested jumpshots, while limiting offenses to one shot per possession. This is why Ray and Paul both struggled mightily at times during the series. Ilgauskas, Wallace, Varejao, Joe Smith plus Lebron up front would make for pretty well rounded matchups overall considering Clevelands vast superiority in terms of team defense.

In the end it would come down to the Lakers having no answers for playoff Lebron, while the Cavs would have slowed the tempo of the game, made the Lakers a jumpshooting team, and dominated the boards on the way to victory. With a better interior/team defense (Bynum could possibly have helped this) the Lakers would've been a much more formidable opponent than they ended up being. As they were constituted I just don't see them as being capable of standing up to Lebron.

[Maple Green]

The question here is would LA and Cleveland beat Celtics in this coming season?
LA and Cleveland will not see each other in the finals either. Because Celtics still there and don't forget Houston to if Healthy Yao-T-mac and Artest are dangerous. But all in all I am still rooting for the defending Champion of the Wooorrrrlllddd! Celtics!

[EJay33]

I agree with humblebum. We are having a discussion about who would win in a 7-game series, the 2007-08 LA Lakers or the 2007-08 Cleveland Cavaliers, and we're talking about Lamar freaking Odom? Newsflash: The LA Lakers don't make it to the finals and compete for championships because of Lamar Odom. Odom and Gasol are what they are, nice players, but they aren't going to be consistent for an entire 7-game series. They are both role players in the Kobe Bryant show. The LA Lakers made it as far as they did because of Kobe Bryant and without him this team isn't a playoff team.

Humblebum brings up another great point, LeBron James. While semi-sentient keeps bringing up how Lamar Odom has had "plenty of success" against the Cavs, Humblebum brings up a player that actually has an impact in the NBA: LeBron James. For the record, 16.5ppg and 10rpg are basically Lamar Odom's season averages, it is not like he has been playing way above his head against the Cavs. And why bring up Gasol on Memphis? Are you really telling me that because he is the only decent player on a team that won a combined 44 games in two years and put up 19 and 12 in 45 minutes in a loss to Cleveland that I should be impressed?

If anything - Gasol and Odom together would most likely take some points and rebounds away from each other. Regardless - Even by your logic of simply adding up their stats even though they were on different teams neither player played above their averages against the Cavs this season!!

Why no mention about how LeBron averaged 37ppg, 9.5rpg, and 4.5apg against LAL? You think Phil would've used the same strategy to stop LeBron that he used on Pierce? (Radmanovic!! hahaha!! that was fun to watch)

I'm getting increasingly wary of continuing this conversation with you because every time I check the stats you cite you end up being wrong. I mean come on man. First you say Lamar Odom has great success against the Cavs, then I find out he gets his season averages against them and that both games happened before he had to share the court with Gasol. Then I hear about Gasol's domination against the Cavs and when I go to check for myself I see that he dropped a quite ordinary 19 and 12 in a game in which his team scored over 120 points and he played 45 minutes - yet you actually typed out the stats for the last three times Ilgauskus and Gasol played - and curiously omitted the only time the two played each other this season. Why did you do that?

Earlier in the thread you informed us that Boston was the best rounding team in the league with no mention of Cleveland or Houston, who were actually the best rebounding teams in the league depending on what stat you like, and you also said that the Spurs outrebounded the Lakers when in reality they got outrebounded by about 4rpg.. It seems pointless for me to keep replying to posts that contain made-up stats. All you have to do is google bro.

I could sit here and say that the Cavs would definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, 100% beat the Lakers in a series because Boobie Gibson averaged 75ppg against the Lakers. Just because I said it, however, doesn't make it true.

So, what we have as far as actual stats:

1. Cavs swept LA 2 years in a row
2. LeBron averaged 37ppg against LA
3. Kobe shot 18-43 against CLE, and averaged 27ppg against CLE. Call me crazy, but I think if Kobe shoots 42% for a series against Cleveland he's not gonna get saved by that supporting cast he was babysitting

Inductive reasoning:
1. LA is soft inside and has trouble rebounding - Cleveland is the best rebounding team in the league
2. LA's money player is a wing - Cleveland held Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Antawn Jamison, and Caron Butler to below their usual standards in the playoffs. Held Kobe below his usual standards during the season.
3. A good defense usually beats a good offense in the playoffs
4. LA defended Paul Pierce with Vladamir Radmanovic and thought their cute offense would be enough to win the series. Pierce is good, but he's not LeBron James. In case you forgot, the strategy didn't work out too well for LA when they played the Celtics.
5. LeBron defended Pierce - why wouldn't he defend Kobe?

Furthmore, why did you even harp on the Ilgauskus/Gasol matchup? You know what Cleveland does if Ilgauskus is too slow? - they go to the bench. He plays 30mpg. He is not glued to the court. He's a role player. Cleveland has plenty of bodies and different looks they can give Pau Gasol. They'd have him frustrated by game 2. He is simply not a transcendent player who is going to be able to adjust to and dominate everything that Cleveland can throw at him. Maybe good for one or two above average games in the series, ditto Lamar, and that's it.

I mean, I already suggested that we agree to disagree and you keep posting. I think LA would fold against this team, you think their cute euro-offense would be enough to carry them to victory. That's about the long and short of it. I will keep debating this if you want but the next time I check your stats and they are wrong I am done with this thread.

Seems pretty simple: defense, rebounding, experience, and star players win championships in the NBA, Cleveland had 'em, LA didn't. You can keep bringing up advantages at PG and off the bench - where LA had the vaunted Luke Walton, Chris Mihm, Ronnie Turiaf, and Sasha Vaggyitch - it's the same stuff Celts fans heard all season. "Boston can't win because they have nothing other than the big three!" Insinuating LA would win a series because of an advantage that Derek Fisher has over Delonte West and Boobie Gibson seems pretty arbitrary when you look at the two teams.

[EJay33]

The question here is would LA and Cleveland beat Celtics in this coming season?
LA and Cleveland will not see each other in the finals either. Because Celtics still there and don't forget Houston to if Healthy Yao-T-mac and Artest are dangerous. But all in all I am still rooting for the defending Champion of the Wooorrrrlllddd! Celtics!

This is a much better question than the one we're currently debating. LA will be a year older, have the experience of an NBA finals run, and have Andrew Bynum back who looked nice before his injury. Cleveland added Mo Williams and won't have to worry about recovering from a midseason trade that temporarily disheveled them. Remember - the Cavs won 50 games 2 of the past three years and are just one season removed from being an NBA Finalist. With the additional talent that Mo Williams brings added to the already formidable team they have they will not be an easy out this season.

LA will have a good record again and they have a shot to get back to the NBA Finals. The Spurs are aging and teams like the Hornets are still very inexperienced and the Rockets are good, but have some serious injury questions and their stars haven't ever been deep in the playoffs. LA is a lot more intimidating with Odom at SF and Gasol at PF - they go from being undersized to being huge. Still doesn't change the fact that they don't play D and Odom is historically better as a PF. I think they should have traded him for Ron Ron.

For the record, I'm a lot more worried about Cleveland than I am about the Lakeshow next season. I love watching Kobe and I think if they keep this team together they will win championships but I don't think they are quite there yet.

[humblebum]

Lots of good info and arguments in those last two posts Godmoney, excellent work.

In regards to your last post I'd agree that Cleveland is more of a worrisome opponent going forward. To the contrary of many NBA fans I believe that Lebron is in a whole different league than Kobe because his combo of physical attributes/skills/instincts are unparalleled in the history of sports. Basically he's the Jim Brown of basketball. Lebron is also a much better leader than Kobe in that he naturally inspires his teammates to follow his example. The Cavs are an excellent playoff team because they really buckle down defensively and on the boards. IMO, a lot of that starts with Lebron. LBJ has the ability to dominate on both ends of the court against a stacked defense... I don't think Kobe dominated against the Celtics defense for any prolonged stretch and his offensive counterparts are much more accomplished on that end of the court than Lebron's teammates.

As far as the Lakers go I think it's huge for them getting Bynum back and healthy because it allows Gasol to play at his natural position. Gasol is a really good PF but an average C due to his inability to physically intimidate opponents. That physicall intimidation is what Perkins is all about for the Celtics and IMO is a huge part of what the Celtics do. If Bynum can bring that type of presence to the Lakers interior defense they will be in really, really good form. But on the other hand, Odom at SF is problematic... as many Laker fans acknowledge. With Odom at SF the Lakers just don't have the outside shooting to spread the floor effectively, in the playoffs against good defensive opponents it just won't work. Radmanovic and Walton are both utter garbage if they're asked to defend high quality 3's which Boston and Cleveland both bring to the table. So, all in all the Lakers have a great team that can defeat most opponents but due to their roster weaknesses they have and will struggle certain teams.

[EJay33]

Humblebum, great post, I agree with everything in it. LeBron clearly established himself as the best player in the NBA, if he hadn't already done that the season before last. I don't want to just bash Kobe because he has done some amazing things in LA, no one can deny the 3 championships, the 35ppg season, and maybe even most impressive of all leading Lamar Odom and quite literally a D-League roster to a 45-win season and a playoff berth in the west in 2005-06. But LeBron has advantages over him physically and as a team leader.

I also agree with your analysis of the Lakers moving forward. They have a very talented and young roster that seems like it might be on the verge of making the leap. I personally don't think the high school kid at center will be able to consistently impact a playoff series right away. Would've been great for him to be a part of that run this year to learn what it's all about. The Lakers are scary because their nucleus is so young and these players will be getting playoff experience and learning to win together for the next few years and will likely peak just when teams like the Spurs and Celtics stop being a factor.

I question Odom's fit on this team. He could be a matchup nightmare at 6'10" at SF, but he's also not a good shooter like you said and is a known choke-artist who disappears when his teams need him. The Lakers are going to have to make a commitment on the defensive end to win. Bynum will help, Kobe is already a top-notch defender, but they will need Odom, Gasol, and Vujacic to really step up like how Ray Allen and Paul Pierce did for the Celtics. Until they do, they are a team with a pretty offense that can be beaten in the playoffs by teams that emphasize defense.

Also, your observation that Kobe didn't dominate Boston for any prolonged stretch in spite of supposedly having a good offensive supporting cast is spot on. He didn't play a single good game against the Celts. LA was lucky to win a game. I kept expecting that 40-point game but it never materialized, and more to the point Kobe is developing a reputation as someone who doesn't show up in the biggest of games since Shaq left LA. LeBron is seen as a guy who turns his game up a notch when the Cavs need him the most.

Maybe in thee years when the kids on the Lakers have suffered some playoff heartbreak I'll be really worried, but for now they were a fun team to watch but I'm much more worried about LeBron and the Cavs.

[semi-sentient]

Humblebum brings up another great point, LeBron James. While semi-sentient keeps bringing up how Lamar Odom has had "plenty of success" against the Cavs, Humblebum brings up a player that actually has an impact in the NBA: LeBron James. For the record, 16.5ppg and 10rpg are basically Lamar Odom's season averages, it is not like he has been playing way above his head against the Cavs. And why bring up Gasol on Memphis? Are you really telling me that because he is the only decent player on a team that won a combined 44 games in two years and put up 19 and 12 in 45 minutes in a loss to Cleveland that I should be impressed?

Why no mention about how LeBron averaged 37ppg, 9.5rpg, and 4.5apg against LAL? You think Phil would've used the same strategy to stop LeBron that he used on Pierce? (Radmanovic!! hahaha!! that was fun to watch)

First, I pretty much stated that LeBron is the biggest mismatch that the Cavs have. I know he's going to get his. We all do. I don't really feel it's necessary to go much into because it's self-explanatory. Yes, LeBron is going to have success, but that by itself isn't going to be enough to beat the Lakers.

Second, you missed the point regarding Odom. He doesn't have to be playing "above his head" to have success, he simply needs to do what he's expected to do. While Odom does put up around his averages against the Cavs, he did not have the same amount of success against the Celtics. In the regular season prior to the Lakers obtaining Pau Gasol, he was completely ineffective against them. Seeing how much of an improvement he had in the Finals, it's quite obvious that he's more effective when someone else takes the focus away from him as a 2nd option. What this means for the Cavs is that because Odom plays well off of Gasol, they won't be able to double-team nearly as much, which means that Gasol is going to be left in a one-on-one situation against Igs, which is clearly a matchup that favors the Lakers. If they do decide to double, then this is where Odom has had "great success" against other teams. I see no reason why he wouldn't have similar success against the Cavs.

Whatever the case, Odom and Gasol are going to play better against the Cavs than they did against the Celtics, and until you provide some good reasons (other than you clearly hating the Lakers) why they wouldn't there's no point in stating anything to the contrary.

If anything - Gasol and Odom together would most likely take some points and rebounds away from each other. Regardless - Even by your logic of simply adding up their stats even though they were on different teams neither player played above their averages against the Cavs this season!

Yes, they actually did play better. In the case of Odom, he scored 2.3 more PPG while increasing his FG% by 14. I'd say that's a nice improvement. Again, Odom has played even better next to Gasol, so am I supposed to believe that he would do worse if the Lakers faced the Cavs in the Finals? There is no reason whatsoever to believe that.

As for Gasol, he scored 8.6 more PPG while increasing his FG% by 21.

So are you still going to roll with the "neither played above their averages" argument?

Now let me make this perfectly clear -- they do not need to reproduce those same increases against the Cavs to have success. The important thing to take out of those statistics is that they ARE capable of playing very well against the Cavs. Add that both players became even more efficient when put on the same team and I find it hard to believe that they would be as ineffective as they were against the Celtics.

I'm getting increasingly wary of continuing this conversation with you because every time I check the stats you cite you end up being wrong. I mean come on man. First you say Lamar Odom has great success against the Cavs, then I find out he gets his season averages against them and that both games happened before he had to share the court with Gasol. Then I hear about Gasol's domination against the Cavs and when I go to check for myself I see that he dropped a quite ordinary 19 and 12 in a game in which his team scored over 120 points and he played 45 minutes - yet you actually typed out the stats for the last three times Ilgauskus and Gasol played - and curiously omitted the only time the two played each other this season. Why did you do that?

First of all, it's you're inability to comprehend that's the issue here. I didn't say they would have "great" success, but I did imply that they would have success against the Cavs relative to how they performed against the Celtics, which is what this discussion is about.

Anyway, While Lamar Odom hasn't necessarily dominated the Cavs (no where did I ever say he did, but thanks for putting words in my mouth), that wasn't the point. Based on what he's done against them, which is all that we really have to go by, it stands to reason that they would not shut him down. No, he is not going to completely go off and be the Finals MVP, but he really doesn't need to. He's a 3rd option and as such, yes, I expect for him to produce what he normally would against the Cavs.

Why wouldn't he? Because you said so?

Earlier in the thread you informed us that Boston was the best rounding team in the league with no mention of Cleveland or Houston, who were actually the best rebounding teams in the league depending on what stat you like, and you also said that the Spurs outrebounded the Lakers when in reality they got outrebounded by about 4rpg.. It seems pointless for me to keep replying to posts that contain made-up stats. All you have to do is google bro.

It's incredibly ironic for you to point out that I was wrong a couple of times when a few quotes above I had to point out how wrong you were regarding Odom and Gasol's regular season averages against the Cavs.

This is a nice tactic used by those who don't really have a point to make. You're harping on a few things that I was wrong about (which I admitted) and are irrelevant anyway, so either make some points or take your own advice and try using Google. Bro.

I could sit here and say that the Cavs would definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, 100% beat the Lakers in a series because Boobie Gibson averaged 75ppg against the Lakers. Just because I said it, however, doesn't make it true.

That doesn't even remotely compare to anything that I've stated and is beyond ridiculous.

So, what we have as far as actual stats:

1. Cavs swept LA 2 years in a row
2. LeBron averaged 37ppg against LA
3. Kobe shot 18-43 against CLE, and averaged 27ppg against CLE. Call me crazy, but I think if Kobe shoots 42% for a series against Cleveland he's not gonna get saved by that supporting cast he was babysitting

Fantastic. The Lakers did not have Gasol in those games. Believe it or not, that does change things a bit, unless you think it was some kind of fluke that the Lakers went on a tear after obtaining him.

Furthermore, Kobe shot 33% against the Celtics in the regular season and 41% in the Finals. Am I to believe that he couldn't increase his efficiency against the Cavs when it's well known that the Lakers offense was much better post-Gasol? I know it's shocking, but having a true 2nd option in the middle does tend to open things up on the perimeter.

Inductive reasoning:
1. LA is soft inside and has trouble rebounding - Cleveland is the best rebounding team in the league
2. LA's money player is a wing - Cleveland held Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Antawn Jamison, and Caron Butler to below their usual standards in the playoffs. Held Kobe below his usual standards during the season.
3. A good defense usually beats a good offense in the playoffs
4. LA defended Paul Pierce with Vladamir Radmanovic and thought their cute offense would be enough to win the series. Pierce is good, but he's not LeBron James. In case you forgot, the strategy didn't work out too well for LA when they played the Celtics.
5. LeBron defended Pierce - why wouldn't he defend Kobe?

1. That's fine. I already stated that I expected the Cavs to outrebound the Lakers.

2. The Lakers aren't going to beat the Cavs by Kobe being a one man show, and Kobe is better than any of the players you mentioned. By a lot.

3. True, but the Lakers have a great offense, not just a good offense. There is a difference. Additionally, the Celtics have/had one of the greatest defenses of our generation while the Cavs don't. I would say in general a great defense beats a great offense, but since the Cavs aren't considered a "great" defensive team that doesn't necessarily apply.

4. I like how you use "cute" in this sentence. Clearly you don't have any agenda or bias. What you fail to point out here is that the Celtics have more than just Pierce on the perimeter. They also have Allen to deal with. The Cavs don't have anything that compares. LeBron would get his, as we all know, but that's about it as far as perimeter threats go.

5. He likely would guard Kobe during certain stretches, but based on past experience he has never guarded him from start to finish.

Furthmore, why did you even harp on the Ilgauskus/Gasol matchup? You know what Cleveland does if Ilgauskus is too slow? - they go to the bench. He plays 30mpg. He is not glued to the court. He's a role player. Cleveland has plenty of bodies and different looks they can give Pau Gasol. They'd have him frustrated by game 2. He is simply not a transcendent player who is going to be able to adjust to and dominate everything that Cleveland can throw at him. Maybe good for one or two above average games in the series, ditto Lamar, and that's it.

Right, they'd have him frustrated. With who, exactly?

In the games where Gasol had success against the Cavs, he averaged ~8 more MPG than Igs. Where was all that frustration then?

Seems pretty simple: defense, rebounding, experience, and star players win championships in the NBA, Cleveland had 'em, LA didn't. You can keep bringing up advantages at PG and off the bench - where LA had the vaunted Luke Walton, Chris Mihm, Ronnie Turiaf, and Sasha Vaggyitch - it's the same stuff Celts fans heard all season. "Boston can't win because they have nothing other than the big three!" Insinuating LA would win a series because of an advantage that Derek Fisher has over Delonte West and Boobie Gibson seems pretty arbitrary when you look at the two teams.

Really, the Lakers don't have experience or "star players"?

Vaggyitch? That's cute. What are you, 10?

I'm done with you.

[NikeAir]

If the Cavs can beat the Celtics and the Celtics can beat the Lakers that means that the Cavs can beat the LAkers.

[GuyClinch]

^^^ But they couldn't so we will never find out. The only relevant question is can with the addition of Mo Williams can the Cavs beat the Lakers... I still say no. But it would be a better battle. Unless they match up Delonte West with Kobe. LMAO.

Pete

[EJay33]

First, I pretty much stated that LeBron is the biggest mismatch that the Cavs have. I know he's going to get his. We all do. I don't really feel it's necessary to go much into because it's self-explanatory. Yes, LeBron is going to have success, but that by itself isn't going to be enough to beat the Lakers.

Yeah, I agree, not really necessary to discuss LeBron James when discussing the Cleveland Cavaliers. Let's focus on the important players like Zydrunas Ilgauskus.

Second, you missed the point regarding Odom. He doesn't have to be playing "above his head" to have success, he simply needs to do what he's expected to do. While Odom does put up around his averages against the Cavs, he did not have the same amount of success against the Celtics. In the regular season prior to the Lakers obtaining Pau Gasol, he was completely ineffective against them. Seeing how much of an improvement he had in the Finals, it's quite obvious that he's more effective when someone else takes the focus away from him as a 2nd option.

Don't get carried away here. Lamar's final statline looks ok, but he was a nonfactor in the NBA Finals. Not one player on the entire LA Lakers team had a good series. LA fanboy Mathew Berry admits this, as do most fans.

What this means for the Cavs is that because Odom plays well off of Gasol, they won't be able to double-team nearly as much, which means that Gasol is going to be left in a one-on-one situation against Igs, which is clearly a matchup that favors the Lakers. If they do decide to double, then this is where Odom has had "great success" against other teams. I see no reason why he wouldn't have similar success against the Cavs.

I disagree strongly here. You keep insisting that Ilgauskus is depended on to defend Gasol one on one. Myself and others keep pointing out to you that the Cavs have many big men, such as Wallace, Ilgauskus, Smith, and Varejo that they can try on Gasol. Ilgauskus is not their defensive stopper, he is in there for offense. The Cavs played straight up on KG. I doubt the Cavs are going to have to rework their entire strategy to contain Pau Gasol, who in spite of your altered statistical presentation has no history of consistently putting up big scoring numbers, giving the Cavs little reason to focus their defense on stopping Gasol. There is one LA Laker than can beat you, and he doesn't look like big bird or have a beard made of pubic hair. And yes, I am ten years old.

This would leave Lamar Odom in single coverage, against good defensive players, against a team that plays good team defense. So, yeah, maybe he'll shoot 66% over the course of an entire playoff series like he did in two games during the regular season. Do you even really believe that is a possibility for Lamar Odom?

Whatever the case, Odom and Gasol are going to play better against the Cavs than they did against the Celtics, and until you provide some good reasons (other than you clearly hating the Lakers) why they wouldn't there's no point in stating anything to the contrary.

Saying that Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol, or any of the Lakers would do better against the Cavs than the Celtics is not only a true statement, but it a laughable defense on your part. You mean, the Lakers won't average 92ppg, lose by an average of 8ppg, and get smashed by 39 in a game with the world championship on the line? That's like saying John Starks would shoot better than 2-18 if he could play that game 7 over again. Do you have any arguments better than Gasol and Odom would do better than being utterly embarrassed, out muscled, and outplayed?

And furthermore, I don't hate the Lakers. I have defended Kobe here and on other forums for years and I can provide links. He is one of my favorite players. Robert Horry is probably my favorite player and most of his legend was with the LA Lakers. But yeah, I don't see the point in arguing that Gasol and Odom would do better than being completely outplayed in all facets of the game.

Are you saying they wouldn't let a Leon Powe caliber player go for 21 points in 15 minutes against the Cavs? I should hope not, but that is the kind of thing you learn with experience, to not simply expect to dominate a guy like Powe and to bring 100% no matter who the opponent is. The 07-08 Lakers outside of Kobe and Fish didn't have this experience.

Yes, they actually did play better. In the case of Odom, he scored 2.3 more PPG while increasing his FG% by 14. I'd say that's a nice improvement. Again, Odom has played even better next to Gasol, so am I supposed to believe that he would do worse if the Lakers faced the Cavs in the Finals? There is no reason whatsoever to believe that.

Let me ask you, do you really believe that Lamar Odom is going to shoot 66% for a series, or do you think that he got a couple lucky rolls in your sample size, which was two games? When I said that Lamar Odom gets his averages against the Cavs, I didn't mean to the field goal percentage point and to the 10th of a point per game. Try thinking next time. I have been careful to check every stat in this thread and it's you who has been wrong about 4 times now, not me.

If you're claiming that Lamar Odom scoring a whole 2.3ppg higher than his season averages in games against the Cavs in which he happened to shoot an unheard of 66% is a significant predictor of things to come, I got news for you: you're wrong. In a best of 7 series against a good defensive team, Lamar Odom will not average 66% from the field. If Odom's shooting stats from the two regular season games are the stats that you're projecting out to determine his success, what would you say if I told you that Jerome James averaged 29ppg and 22rpg on 100% shooting per 36 minutes last year?

Of course it's ridiculous to expect him to do that in a significant sample size. Lamar Odom was Lamar Odom against the Cavs this season. And Lamar Odom isn't very good. He is barely worth discussing. If you think the Lakers are going to win a series against the Cavs because of Lamar Odom, you just don't understand basketball very well.

As for Gasol, he scored 8.6 more PPG while increasing his FG% by 21.

I do thank you for going back and using the correct stats that I provided for you. No need to thank me for pointing out your error, semi-sentient. But at least we're talking about reality now and not Pau Gasol-cherry-picked-statland as we were before.

Anyways, I actually can't find any box scores from beyond last year to check your Pau Gasol stats other than the game from last year. A link would be appreciated where you got the stats from the last three Cavs/Pau matchups. However, even if I take your word for it you are still using stats from Gasol on a 22-win team where he is the only option, not sharing shots with a guy named Kobe.

Semi-sentient, let me ask you, do you really think that Pau Gasol can average 8.6ppg more than he did during the season over the course of a playoff series against the Cavs?

Your main reason for thinking that he can is because the Cavs don't have Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett to defend him. I argue that Gasol has never stepped up and averaged 27ppg even when defended by inferior defenders playing for horrible defensive teams, and considering the Cavs are a good defensive team with good defensive players, I don't think he'd put up these amazing stats you have him penciled in for.

What happened in 04-05 against the Suns? What happened in 05-06 against Dallas? What happened this year against Denver? Or this year against Utah? Pau Gasol was Pau Gasol. He doesn't turn into Moses Malone in his prime when not facing Duncan or Garnett.

What happens when Paul Gasol plays good defensive teams, like the Spurs in 2003, or the Spurs in 07-08, or the Celtics in 07-08? He plays below average. You seem unwilling and unable to put the Cavs in the group with the Celtics and those two Spurs teams as good defensive teams. It is true, they aren't as good, but they also aren't the Suns, Mavs, or Nuggets. Utah is curiously hard to categorize because they are a decent defensive team (although not as good as Cleveland) - but have to double Bryant and are a victim of matchups with LA. It is also truthful to say that in the playoffs the Cavs peaked defensively, playing better on that end of the floor than the #1 ranked defensive team in the league during the regular season, Detroit.

So are you still going to roll with the "neither played above their averages" argument?

Yeah, maybe I'll concede Gasol, but I've listed numerous reasons why he wouldn't be expected to have the same success in a playoff series, chiefly among them, he is not a transcendent player and has never, not even once, played like one in a playoff series.

Now let me make this perfectly clear -- they do not need to reproduce those same increases against the Cavs to have success. The important thing to take out of those statistics is that they ARE capable of playing very well against the Cavs. Add that both players became even more efficient when put on the same team and I find it hard to believe that they would be as ineffective as they were against the Celtics.

If they were as ineffective as they were against the Celtics, they might not beat the Knicks in a seven game series.

First of all, it's you're inability to comprehend that's the issue here. I didn't say they would have "great" success, but I did imply that they would have success against the Cavs relative to how they performed against the Celtics, which is what this discussion is about.

The discussion is actually about whether or not the Lakers could beat the Cavs in a playoff series. If this is about whether or not the Los Angeles Lakers can play better than they did against the Celtics in the NBA Finals I am in the wrong thread. I agree completely. If LA played like they did against the Celtics in the finals every night they'd be considering tanking to compete with Oklahoma for ping pong balls by December.

Anyway, While Lamar Odom hasn't necessarily dominated the Cavs (no where did I ever say he did, but thanks for putting words in my mouth), that wasn't the point. Based on what he's done against them, which is all that we really have to go by, it stands to reason that they would not shut him down. No, he is not going to completely go off and be the Finals MVP, but he really doesn't need to. He's a 3rd option and as such, yes, I expect for him to produce what he normally would against the Cavs.

Why wouldn't he? Because you said so?

Ok. So the Lakers have Lamar Odom. Lamar Odom everybody! This is hardly worth discussing, as he is a role player with little impact. What if I said Zydrunas Ilgauskus could get his averages against the Lakers? You might agree, you might disagree, but the point is it doesn't matter. I just threw in the dominating comment because you are under the impressions he's going to waltz in and shoot 66%, which would be dominating. Not gonna happen. Ask the Clippers' fans what they think of Lamar Odom's ability to perform when he's needed most. You guys got a taste of it this year. I loved the smirk on his face after a 2nd quarter and one right before he lost focus with the rest of your inexperienced team and gave away a game that you led by 20 in the first quarter.

If anything, it stands to reason that since LA is a bad defensive team, that the Cavaliers players' stats would be inflated playing against LA. Conversely, since the Cavs are a good defensive team, it stands to reason that LA's players' stats would be less than usual.

It's incredibly ironic for you to point out that I was wrong a couple of times when a few quotes above I had to point out how wrong you were regarding Odom and Gasol's regular season averages against the Cavs.

Semi-sentient, it's just a message board bro. No one is going to remember this conversation 3 weeks from now. Your boss and your girlfriend aren't going to try to replace you because you posted some incorrect stats. You can admit you were wrong. In fact, don't admit anything, I'll just quote you directly.

Take a good look at what Gasol has done to him the last 3 times they faced each other:

Gasol:
27 PTS (11-13 FG), 6 REB, 1 AST, 1 STL, 1 BLK, 1 TO
28 PTS (12-19 FG), 7 REB, 3 AST, 0 STL, 2 BLK, 3 TO
37 PTS (12-20 FG), 11 REB, 1 AST, 1 STL, 5 BLK, 4 TO

AVERAGE PPG IN YOUR INCORRECT STATS:
30.6ppg
Gasol's actual PPG: 19.1

30.6
-19.1
-------
11.5

Now, here is where I corrected you:

I'm getting increasingly wary of continuing this conversation with you because every time I check the stats you cite you end up being wrong. I mean come on man. First you say Lamar Odom has great success against the Cavs, then I find out he gets his season averages against them and that both games happened before he had to share the court with Gasol. Then I hear about Gasol's domination against the Cavs and when I go to check for myself I see that he dropped a quite ordinary 19 and 12 in a game in which his team scored over 120 points and he played 45 minutes - yet you actually typed out the stats for the last three times Ilgauskus and Gasol played - and curiously omitted the only time the two played each other this season. Why did you do that?

And then, here is your last post where you added the game in that you omitted in your first incorrect post on the subject until I corrected you:

As for Gasol, he scored 8.6 more PPG while increasing his FG% by 21.

So lets see: (27+28+37+19)/4 = 27.75ppg

27.75ppg
-19.1ppg
----------
8.6ppg difference...


So you see, you used my correct stats in an attempt to show that I used incorrect stats. Really semi-sentient, I'm not that stupid, but there might be other people here reading this thread that aren't paying as careful attention. They might think that I'm making up stats. It's a message board man, don't make me defend my credibility. YOU omitted a game in an attempt to make Gasol's stats appear better than they really are, and then you accuse me of being wrong about Gasol's averages. Also, show me where I posted 1 incorrect stat about Lamar Odom. Grow up man, my stats have been flawless and if I made a mistake I'd graciously admit it, yours are half-truths and often just made up lies.

This is a nice tactic used by those who don't really have a point to make. You're harping on a few things that I was wrong about (which I admitted) and are irrelevant anyway, so either make some points or take your own advice and try using Google. Bro.

Using incorrect stats, and then accusing someone else of using incorrect stats is a nice tactic used by a troll. And really, that's what you're doing here is trolling. You're throwing around claims like declaring one team rebounds better than another when they really don't and the stats prove it, then when I call you out you try to turn the debate on me not with numbers, but with semantics.

And where did you admit why you didn't include Gasol's most recent game against Cleveland? You just acted like you never made the mistake and never even acknowledged that I corrected you.

Also make some points? I have 2 lists of numbered points in my last post. LOL. Quit trolling.

So, what we have as far as actual stats:

1. Cavs swept LA 2 years in a row
2. LeBron averaged 37ppg against LA
3. Kobe shot 18-43 against CLE, and averaged 27ppg against CLE. Call me crazy, but I think if Kobe shoots 42% for a series against Cleveland he's not gonna get saved by that supporting cast he was babysitting

Fantastic. The Lakers did not have Gasol in those games. Believe it or not, that does change things a bit, unless you think it was some kind of fluke that the Lakers went on a tear after obtaining him.

Furthermore, Kobe shot 33% against the Celtics in the regular season and 41% in the Finals. Am I to believe that he couldn't increase his efficiency against the Cavs when it's well known that the Lakers offense was much better post-Gasol? I know it's shocking, but having a true 2nd option in the middle does tend to open things up on the perimeter.

Not if you can play him one on one because he isn't that good and has never in his career averaged more than 22ppg in a series so he isn't a big enough threat to really worry about, especially at the expense of Kobe Bryant.

Inductive reasoning:
1. LA is soft inside and has trouble rebounding - Cleveland is the best rebounding team in the league
2. LA's money player is a wing - Cleveland held Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Antawn Jamison, and Caron Butler to below their usual standards in the playoffs. Held Kobe below his usual standards during the season.
3. A good defense usually beats a good offense in the playoffs
4. LA defended Paul Pierce with Vladamir Radmanovic and thought their cute offense would be enough to win the series. Pierce is good, but he's not LeBron James. In case you forgot, the strategy didn't work out too well for LA when they played the Celtics.
5. LeBron defended Pierce - why wouldn't he defend Kobe?

1. That's fine. I already stated that I expected the Cavs to outrebound the Lakers.

2. The Lakers aren't going to beat the Cavs by Kobe being a one man show, and Kobe is better than any of the players you mentioned. By a lot.

Oh yeah because Kobe has demonstrated that he is capable of this. You beat the Jazz because Kobe went nuts. You beat the Spurs because Kobe made his jumpers. You lost to the Celtics because Kobe couldn't get it going from the outside and Boston didn't let him inside. Yeah, Kobe is better than those guys by a lot, but they are all high scoring wings who can't do what they normally do against the Cavs.

3. True, but the Lakers have a great offense, not just a good offense. There is a difference. Additionally, the Celtics have/had one of the greatest defenses of our generation while the Cavs don't. I would say in general a great defense beats a great offense, but since the Cavs aren't considered a "great" defensive team that doesn't necessarily apply.

A great offense? We've really lowered the bar haven't we? I'd go with entertaining offense. Fun offense. Pretty offense. Arguably as good as the recent Suns' teams offenses. Great? This great offense averaged 92ppg in the finals and not one player on the team could do a thing about it. You think Stevie Nash ever went out like that? Even against the Spurs? And remember, those Spurs teams had more impressive OPPG than the 07-08 Celts did. Celtics were amazing defensively, but you might run into some opposition claiming they are the one of the greatest defenses of our generation.

4. I like how you use "cute" in this sentence. Clearly you don't have any agenda or bias. What you fail to point out here is that the Celtics have more than just Pierce on the perimeter. They also have Allen to deal with. The Cavs don't have anything that compares. LeBron would get his, as we all know, but that's about it as far as perimeter threats go.

Fun, fluffly, cuddlly, entertaining. A nice team to watch while drinking a couple beers on a saturday night, not a team you worry about if you have a team built for playoff basketball, like the recent Suns teams. And yeah, the Cavs have shooters. They wouldn't forget how to shoot.

5. He likely would guard Kobe during certain stretches, but based on past experience he has never guarded him from start to finish.

playoffs.. PLAYOFFS?!?! We're just trying to win a game here and you wanna talk about PLAYOFFS!!!?

Things are different in the playoffs. Rotations shorten, intensity heightens, teams get more physical with each other, tempers and emotions flare... Oh yeah and teams don't let the other teams best player do whatever he wants to inferior defenders. LeBron James is a leader. Trust me, if Paul Pierce is demanding to guard Bryant LeBron is too. Plus LeBron guarded Paul. No reason for you to think the Kobe would be free to run wild on Wally World. In fact, Wally/Radman are made for each other. It's so painfully obvious to see how this would play out. Why are you ignoring the obvious? Because Phil was dumb enough to stick Radman on Pierce you think other teams, teams that emphasize defense, make the same foolish decisions?

Right, they'd have him frustrated. With who, exactly?

I dunno, maybe, all the physical big men they have and the swarming team defense they employ?

In the games where Gasol had success against the Cavs, he averaged ~8 more MPG than Igs. Where was all that frustration then?

Where was the frustration then? Probably in Pau Gasol's psyche, knowing he hasn't beaten Zydrunas Ilgauskus and the Cavs since 2003-2004 in a single game. On a crappy team, someone has to score. It's the Lionell Simmons rule. And yes, assuming those stats from the three games you originally cited were from the Grizzlies in the past two seasons, who won a combined 44 games - yes - they were a crappy team. Knowing you though, I'd rather see a link before I just take your word for it.

Really, the Lakers don't have experience or "star players"?

The Cavs are the one team with a star than shines brighter than Bryant's. Experience? You must be joking right bro? That team was green.

Vaggyitch? That's cute. What are you, 10?

Yep, ten years old. How did you know? That was quite the burn. Do you write your own material? Ever considered taking your comedy act on tour? You could get a lot of laughs and make a lot of money with jokes like that!

I'm done with you.

Really? I was having such a good time getting trolled with cherry-picked stats, false accusations on the accuracy of my stats, and personal attacks. I'd hate to see it end. Good luck in 08-09.

P.S. Never shoulda let Horry go. Now you're cursed!

[ddubb]

Boy, its gonna be a rude awakening when the Lakers get bounced in the first round next year.

Thier fans aren't that sharp, they got really lucky to even get to the Finals last year - yet they think they have a dynasty on their hands. I seem to remember them all predicting sweeps in the Finals too, how did that go for ya?

Next year the leagues softest team will start the season without their toughest player from last year, Ronnie Turiaf. Good luck giving Chris Mihm big mpg -- LOL -- can't wait to see him try and guard Oden.

[bballcool34]

Boy, its gonna be a rude awakening when the Lakers get bounced in the first round next year.

What a joke- the Celtics were closer to not making it out of the first round than the Lakers.

Thier fans aren't that sharp, they got really lucky to even get to the Finals last year - yet they think they have a dynasty on their hands. I seem to remember them all predicting sweeps in the Finals too, how did that go for ya?

They got to the Finals with a record of 12-3: luck had nothing to do with it. Give credit where credit is due- they got to the Finals and lost to the better team.

Your not the sharpest guy, are you? What do you mean you remember "them" all predicting that the Lakers would win? You do know that the Lakers didn't predict a sweep in the Finals don't you? And that a fair amount of fans at the time said the series would be close.

I've been a Celtics fan my entire life, but a post like yours which is so utterly biased and serves to
contribute nothing to the discussion just makes you look like a joke.

Semi-sentient wasn't saying anything outrageous, and he succeeded in backing up some of his points- show some class.